Does Biology make sense without Darwin?

[whirlingmerc]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

 

[LuisDantas]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind

I would hope so.

Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science merely a dogma justifying atheism?

No, it isn't. And that is one of several reasons why it does not happen.

Another reason is because Darwin is in fact redundant. His findings were basically unavoidable, as well illustrated by the Wallace episode. His merit is in his pioneership, not his "originality" as such.

Then there is the lack of "unifying" power in the ToE. It is just a biological finding, after all.

Finally, it is not even related to atheism.

 

[Sunstone]

Biology without evolution is like physics without relativity. There might be ways of making sense of it -- in much the same way Newtonian physics makes sense of physics -- but they are not truly accurate or profound ways of making sense of biology.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Biology without evolution is like physics without relativity. There might be ways of making sense of it -- in much the same way Newtonian physics makes sense of physics -- but they are not truly accurate or profound ways of making sense of biology.

So you can be a perfectly good Dr or Nurse or technologist or farmer or car mechanic
What would be the lack without Darwinism

and actually, if one cannot question Darwinism, is that an impediment to science? Science questions everything

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

You would need new information. But the process is clearly observable enough to know what's going on.

 

[Father Heathen]

if one cannot question Darwinism, is that an impediment to science? Science questions everything

Science has already questioned (and confirmed) it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

For the Nth time, Darwin doesn't have anything to do with justifying atheism. There are theistic evolutionists, and non evolution accepting atheists.

 

[Sunstone]

So you can be a perfectly good Dr or Nurse or technologist or farmer or car mechanic
What would be the lack without Darwinism

Perhaps more importantly, can you be a "perfectly good" scientist out to breed a new crop species without understanding evolution? If you think the answer is "yes", check out the famines under Stalin and later Soviet leaders that resulted from Stalin's denial of "Darwinian" evolution.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So you can be a perfectly good Dr or Nurse or technologist or farmer or car mechanic
What would be the lack without Darwinism

Providing appropriate care to the treatment of evolving pathogens would suffer were one not a believer in evolution. That's the obvious one. Evolution as a mechanism also explains a great many more abstract biological phenomena, particularly to do with psychology and biomechanics.

and actually, if one cannot question Darwinism, is that an impediment to science? Science questions everything

Question Darwin all you like. Just don't get upset when your questions are answered with answers you don't like.

 

[David T]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

Does life interconnected make sense without a book you ask.

Since the tone deaf in religion argue with the tone deaf in science on this I suppose nothing makes sense to those types without a book!
Seems to be a hearing problem of some sorts inside religion and science. There is actually an outside of religion and science "believe it or nots".

All ancient story had the divine, nature, cosmos, as a singular, interacting long before modern philosophy.. Its still echoed in music. Where the language of the lyrics and the tonality of the instrument blend.
Seems like a problem of a particular region of the brain that's a bit self important called the intellect.

 

[exchemist]

So you can be a perfectly good Dr or Nurse or technologist or farmer or car mechanic
What would be the lack without Darwinism

and actually, if one cannot question Darwinism, is that an impediment to science? Science questions everything

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

It might be helpful if you could define what you mean by "Darwinism". This seems to mean different things to different people - and creationists are especially likely to have a distorted idea of it, since by and large they don't understand science.

 

[sayak83]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

All biological progress would screech to a halt if scientists stop using the principles of evolutionary biology in their research.
Its like asking can chemistry do without the atomic theory and the periodic table. No. Never.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you can be a perfectly good Dr or Nurse or technologist or farmer or car mechanic
What would be the lack without Darwinism

Willful ignorance and its attendant damage.

and actually, if one cannot question Darwinism, is that an impediment to science? Science questions everything

Why do you think one can't? Darwin's findings were questioned and corrected time and again. That is what brought evolution to fore.

 

[ChristineM]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

Teaching medicine, technology and agriculture is a benefit to mankind. What is being lost? Much shorter life span, no communication , over a billion deaths from starvation. I dont know about you but im happy to lose those benefits.

The idea of evolution is older than the bible. Darwin just documented what he observed but little understood? The study of evolution, biology and science in general has moved on 150 years since darwins time. So no darwinism is not a grand unifying them but a point of rationality that has been built on.

Does biology make sense without evolution? No, or more precisely, very little depending on the aperture you are viewing through. An instant snapshot doesn't show evolution, but biological life evolves slowly, the wider the aperture the more evolution comes to light.

 

[David T]

Can you teach medicine, technology and agriculture with no practical loss of benefit to mankind
Is insisting Darwinism is the one essential grand unifying theme of science OR merely a dogma justifying atheism?

Hubris? or truth? or merely truthy

from Wiki
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" is a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky, criticising anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in American Biology Teacher in 1973.

Dobzhansky first used the title statement, in a slight variation, in a 1964 presidential address to the American Society of Zoologists, "Biology, Molecular and Organismic", to assert the importance of organismic biology in response to the challenge of the rising field of molecular biology The term "light of evolution"—or sub specie evolutionis—had been used earlier by the Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and then by the biologist Julian Huxley.

So you are saying that the anthropcence epoch is sciences fault. Agreed..

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

To the OP: no.

Anything else we can clear up for you?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Biology without evolution is like physics without relativity. There might be ways of making sense of it -- in much the same way Newtonian physics makes sense of physics -- but they are not truly accurate or profound ways of making sense of biology.

Nah, it's like physics without Einstein AND Newton. Newtonian physics explains a lot. Biology without an understanding of evolution by natural selection explains nothing.

 

[Skwim]

It might be helpful if you could define what you mean by "Darwinism". This seems to mean different things to different people - and creationists are especially likely to have a distorted idea of it, since by and large they don't understand science.

"Darwinism" is what creationists believe to be a deprecatory term for "evolution." And believing such, they sometimes use it when trying to get a rise out of evolutionists. In truth, all it does is signal their lack of any true ability to address the issues of evolution, and has become so common that it's pretty much ignored by everyone. Use "Darwinism" and you're inviting people to dismiss everything that follows.

.

.

 

[paarsurrey]

Does Biology make sense without Darwin?

Didn't Biology exist before Darwin?
Darwin did discover "evolution", right, and we appreciate his contributions in this connection but human biology existed as per the system created by G-d before Darwin.

Regards
_______
Transcript of History of Biology Timeline
History of Biology Timeline
335 BC: Aristotle's Contribution to Biology
Founded the Lyceum (a school he taught at) in Athens
Attempted to classify animals based on common characteristics such as whether or not there blood was red
First system of animal classification
Most of those with red blood were vertebrates while most without it were cephalopods
Organisms were either plants or animals
Recognized humans had similarities to other animals, especially apes
Did not accept that fish “rained” down from the sky and instead proposed that they came
(SeeFull) transcript
History of Biology Timeline

 

[LuisDantas]

Does Biology make sense without Darwin?

Didn't Biology exist before Darwin?

Yes. And it developed to the extent that it could without the discovery of biological evolution before him, as well.

Darwin found out about evolution, as did Wallace some years later. The findings were confirmed and corrected many times since.

Darwin did discover "evolution", right, and we appreciate his contributions in this connection but

human biology existed as per the system created by G-d before Darwin.

That is actually a valid view, although the god-belief part is a personal call given the lack of evidence.